Rupert Quaintance trial update: Day 4

Yes, we’re back to referring to the trial by Rupert’s real name, as it seems the court listings have done the same. As always, we ask that no one speculate about the outcome of the trial in the comments section. We appreciate everyone’s cooperation!

Cross-examination of defendant, part 2

On the fourth day of Rupert Quaintance’s trial on multiple counts of harassment causing fear of violence, court resumed at 10:15 a.m. with Rupert still in the witness stand, being cross-examined by Martyn Bowyer for the prosecution. Noting that he would not be leaving the topic of the other Hampstead “activists” completely, Mr Bowyer took up where he left off yesterday.

“When did you discover that Angela Power-Disney was, as you put it, ‘dangerous’?” he asked.

“I’ll have to think about that”, Rupert said.

Mr Bowyer asked whether the realisation came before or after Rupert’s visit to Lanzarote. On reflection, Rupert said it was about halfway through the second week there. “I decided she was a meddler”, he said. “She manipulates people, especially when they’re frightened”.

Mr Bowyer confirmed with Rupert that his travels had taken him from the United States to Italy, then Holland, then Lanzarote, and finally the UK, where he had arrived on 9 August 2016.

He pointed out that the Excel document found on Rupert’s hard drive, containing the names of Christ Church Primary School parents, had been created on 30 July 2016, so this must have occurred while Rupert was in Lanzarote. “You accepted yesterday that one source for this document could have been Angela Power-Disney”, he said.

Rupert agreed that this was possible, but said he was not certain.

Mr Bowyer asked whether Sabine McNeill could be characterised as another “activist”, and Rupert agreed that she could. Mr Bowyer suggested that Rupert might not have found Sabine as “dangerous” as Angela, and that he might not have had so many concerns about her”. Again, Rupert agreed.

Mr Bowyer noted that the second list of parents’ names had been found on the HampsteadChristChurch.com site, which had been accessed several times by someone using Rupert’s laptop. The link to that site had been sent by Sabine on 31 March 2016, before Rupert left the United States. He asked whether Rupert had seen this site prior to Sabine sending it to him. “It’s hard to say”, said Rupert. “I can’t remember”.

Mr Bowyer said that on 31 March, Sabine had sent a Skype message with a link to the site, and that Rupert had already stated that he “believed he would have looked at it”. He asked whether Rupert had read about the multiple addresses alleged to belong to the father in the case. Rupert said he might have bookmarked it and saved it for later.

Asked when he had realised that the Hampstead case might not have been all he initially believed, Rupert said, “I came to that determination around my second week in Italy”. He said he had gained more clarity, and the case “took on a different tone to me”.

Mr Bowyer asked Rupert why, if he was no longer interested in Hampstead, he had continued to save documents sent to him about the case: “If someone was sending lies to you, which were of no interest to you, why save them?” he asked.

Rupert replied, “I didn’t want to be accused of being a fraud. I wanted to show that I did my work”.

Turning to the American Freedom Radio broadcast, Mr Bowyer asked Rupert who he’d been referring to in the part of the broadcast where he said, “I don’t want to kill them, I just want to beat them up really bad”. “The people who’d been causing me to fear violence”, Rupert said.

“But had anyone been violent toward you?” Mr Bowyer asked, noting that the reference to beating people up had been immediately followed by Rupert saying, “They’ve been physical, why shouldn’t people get physical with them?” Mr Bowyer contended that this reference was not to Rupert’s trolls online, but to the people of Hampstead, who had supposedly “been physical” in abusing children. “This is a reference to the parents, isn’t it?” he asked. “No one in the list of parents had been physical with you, so why would you say this?”

He further pointed out that Rupert had made that broadcast during his sojourn in Holland, immediately prior to coming to the UK. “Your attitude toward Hampstead had not changed one iota”, he said.

Rupert said he could “understand why you think I was ready for a row—I was just trying to puff myself up”.

Mr Bowyer said that when Rupert had referred in his YouTube video to “kicking down doors and taking blood samples”, this could only refer to the parents, as it would make no sense to “take blood samples” from any other party.

“That was off the cuff”, Rupert said. “I never thought it would be repeated”.

Referring to the Facebook post in which Rupert showed himself at the school, Mr Bowyer asked, “Regarding the comments from your friend Clay, is ‘biscuit’ slang for ‘gun’?” Rupert said that it is, especially in the hiphop world.

“So when Clay posted ‘is that a biscuit in your pocket?’ did you think he meant gun?”

“My initial inclination was to delete that comment”, Rupert said, adding that on second thought he had decided not to censor his friend’s comment.

Rupert said that at the end of the Facebook conversation, he had said, “Haha, no no no”.

“At some point even Clay suggested that it might be a good idea to remove the post, didn’t he?” Mr Bowyer asked.

“No, I said that”, Rupert said. “I don’t think Clay would say to take it down”.

Referring to his arrest on 13 September, Rupert said that pre- and post-arrest he felt like two different people. “I was really relieved after the harassment stopped”.

Mr Bowyer asked Rupert to explain what was going through his mind during the week between posting the Facebook post and his arrest: “You still wanted to satisfy the people who’d brought you over here, but was it all over for you?”

Rupert said that the morning before he was arrested, he felt he’d overstayed his welcome. “I was exploring getting a plane ticket,” he said. “My final findings were inconclusive”.

“When were you planning to announce you had no evidence” to support the Hampstead allegations?”

“As soon as I left”.

“Did you actually put anything else up about the Hampstead case after 5 September?”

“I don’t remember”.

Mr Bowyer said, “So no report, no video, no Twitter post saying it was a dead story?”

“I didn’t want to be between the two sides, with one wanting me to investigate”, Rupert said.

“You received donations from people like Angela Power-Disney, Sabine McNeill, and others”, Mr Bowyer said. “So your trip was partly funded by them?”

Rupert agreed that this was true.

“On the other hand, you had the people who vilified you—so you had twice the reason to say ‘I’ve done my best, it’s time to move on”. That would have satisfied both sides, wouldn’t it?” Mr Bowyer asked.

Rupert said he had not considered that.

Turning to the original YouTube video, Mr Bowyer asked how it happened that Rupert had completely ignored the negative feedback he’d received on it.

Rupert said that when he makes videos, he glances at the comments, but doesn’t dwell on them; and so in this case he went back a year later and checked.

Referring to videos which Angela made with Rupert, secretly recording them and then putting them up without his permission, Mr Bowyer asked whether Rupert was aware of these.

“Yes, I asked her to take them down”, he said.

“Did you ask YouTube to take them down?”

Rupert said he had not.

Mr Bowyer asked Rupert, “Are you a reasonable man?”

“Yes, but I’m naïve, and I learn the hard way”, he responded.

Mr Bowyer asked whether Rupert accepted that he had played some part in the distress suffered by the witnesses in this trial.

“No”, Rupert said.

“None at all?”

“I guess, if you look at it in a certain way, I just feel picked on and and pinned down”, Rupert said. “I do feel guilt and remorse for what has befallen me”.

“So you enjoyed the attention of this extremely divisive situation, including the abuse?”

“At first, yes”, Rupert said. “But once I realised how deep I was in, no”.

Mr Bowyer said, “I submit that you enjoyed it. You came to this country armed with a list of names”.

“That sounds so nefarious”, Rupert said.

Mr Bowyer pointed out that to take another person’s blood against their will would require violence.

“Put a certain way”, Rupert replied.

“I submit that you wanted to beat them up pretty bad right before you left Holland for the UK, and that after that you came to the school and left a message on Facebook that you were armed, which you didn’t remove”, Mr Bowyer said.

At this point, Rupert could be heard sniffling. Mr Bowyer stated that his cross-examination was done.

Defence response

Referring to the Facebook post, Mr Stevens noted that it ended with a comment from Leo Gallagher, not Rupert’s friend Clay. He asked Rupert whether his response “no, no” was an answer to a question from Mr Gallagher, or from Clay.

Both, Rupert said. “I thought [Leo] was referring to someone who’d been killed by the police.

Mr Stevens stated that the response had been posted on 7 September 2016.

Judge’s questions for defendant

Judge Griffith asked Rupert whether he had had any part in reposting his first Hampstead video in February 2016. Rupert replied that he had not.

Judge Griffith said, “You said you had been told that ‘they’d be waiting for me’ when you arrived in the UK. How did they know when you would be getting off the plane?”

Rupert said he didn’t know.

“How did they know where you were [in London]?” Mr Griffith asked. Rupert said that he had done a video in the back garden of the house where he was staying in Erith, and some people had identified its location from local landmarks visible in the video.

Rupert said, “There were some strange events”, such as people knocking on the door early in the morning or calling the house where he was staying and hanging up. He attributed this behaviour to those who had been harassing him online.

Judge Griffith noted that on Rupert’s Facebook account, someone named “Roger Flutterby” had said, “You look like a creepy knuckle-scraping twat”, and asked whether this was typical of the abuse Rupert had suffered.

“I’d say that was light”, Rupert said.

The judge asked Rupert whether he had any screen shots of death threats he had received.

“Yes, but I don’t have them with me”, Rupert said.

Admissions, part 2

Further to the Admissions which were put on the record yesterday, a set of admissions was given to the jury today. It was agreed between the parties that Rupert had been a target of online abuse; that his address had been published without his permission; that Rupert had complained about this to the police; and that a person who identified himself to police as a Satanist had been asked and had agreed to stop directing angry posts online at Rupert.

Character references

Mr Stevens, defence, read out the contents of four character references for the defendant, in which he was described as “kind-hearted and empathetic” with a “wonderful soul”. One reference said he has a strong work ethic, having been employed nearly five years; another said he exhibits compassion and empathy, and the last one characterised him as kind and respectful.

This was the end of the evidence, for both prosecution and defence.

Legal directions

Judge Griffith gave the jury legal directions, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt, and that it was not up to Rupert to prove his innocence. He reviewed the Harassment Act, noting that the phrase “a course of conduct” must be differentiated from a series of unrelated acts. The course of conduct must be aimed at an individual, so the jury must consider whether this includes the named people in this case, most obviously the parents.

The judge explained that the course of conduct must cause the victims to fear that violence might be used against them. In this case, he said, some of the witnesses had expressed fear for their children. The judge said it would be up to the jury to decide whether the witnesses’ fear had been for themselves, or for their children.

The next step, he said, would be to determine whether Rupert knew, or ought to have known, the effect his course of conduct would have. “It’s not enough for him to say, ‘I didn’t think about it'” he said. Considering whether he ought to have known, the jury must decide whether a reasonable man would have known the effect of his course of conduct.

In this case, there are three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a lesser charge, to whit, simple harassment. Simple harassment is harassment in which there is no fear of violence, but rather “alarm or distress”.

Given the character references provided, and the fact that Rupert by his own admission has only been in trouble with the law over a minor cannabis charge long ago, Judge Griffith said that he must be treated as a “person of good character”. This factor must be taken into account, and the jury must consider whether it makes it less likely that Rupert committed the offences with which he has been charged.

Prosecution summing up

In his summing up for the prosecution, Mr Bowyer asked, “Are we sure that the defendant’s actions constituted a course of conduct?” He said that a course of conduct is loosely defined in the legislation, so the jury would need to determine the actual number of acts which constitute it: is it two? three? 16? 136? “It’s up to you”, he said.

He also noted that there is no need to define the amount of time between the acts: “It could be once per week, once per month, once per year”. The time frame in question here is between February 2015 and September 2016, and it may be suggested that he posted the video in 2015 but no one saw them until a year later. It’s up to the jury to decide whether this matters, he said.

Regarding whether the witnesses felt distressed, it’s clear that they did. “They had fears for themselves, for their children”, Mr Bowyer said, referring to one witness’ need to install CCTV around the home, while another mentioned having to travel home a different way each time to avoid being followed and attacked.

Rupert’s behaviour was “designed to cause alarm and distress to the witnesses when he posted the American Freedom Radio broadcast, Mr Bowyer said. “Did he intend to cause alarm and distress? It is enough if the intended victims were parents of the children at the heart of the investigation”, Mr Bowyer said. “It’s important to know that he had their names on an Excel spreadsheet, and that he had access to another list”.

As to whether Rupert “knew or ought to have known”, he said, “it may be that, being possessed of all the facts, an impartial bystander would have known that as a parent at the school [a witness] might have felt very much under suspicion. Would the average man have known that [the witness] would feel harassed under such circumstances?”

Mr Bowyer noted that this jury brings together 12 people of different ages, sexes, and ethnicities who will come together and decide what a reasonable man would think.

“No one is suggesting that the witnesses in this case were not in fear of violence”, he said. As to whether the fear of violence was for themselves or their children, he pointed out, “If you feared your child was in danger, who would you put between your child and their attacker?” Any parent would do that without stopping to think, he said.

As to whether the jury can be sure that the defendant knew or ought to have known that his course of conduct would cause fear, “how could he possibly not have realised?” Mr Bowyer asked.

“It’s likely that you’ll leave this court in a state of shock that images of children aged eight and nine could be spread across the internet”, Mr Bowyer said. “You’ll be in shock that it is so easy for people hiding behind a keyboard to cause such distress to innocent people”. This shock does not necessarily mean that Rupert is guilty, he said, noting that Rupert himself had described the internet as being like the wild west. That was a place where there was very little law, and a great deal of lawlessness.

“We must try to police the internet”, he said. “In Western movies, if you’re a John Wayne figure on the Oregon Trail, fighting the redskins and robbing wagon trains, normally a sheriff comes along” and deals with the situation.

The prosecution doesn’t suggest that Rupert was not subject to abuse: “When you say provocative things, you’ll provoke a response”. Rupert stated that the abuse he suffered had affected every part of his daily life; but how did it affect the four witnesses?

The YouTube video Rupert posted was seen by a number of witnesses. It starts off with Rupert saying he “believes the children”—that he felt doors needed to be kicked down and blood samples taken.

This was posted about a month before Mrs Justice Pauffley’s ruling, but that did not seem to dull his interest.

Everyone in the public gallery here today is free to say they think the jury got it wrong when this case is finished. However, no one is entitled to embark upon a campaign against the jury or against anyone they perceived as supporting the jury’s decision. No one is entitled to threaten to kick down doors or take blood samples, as this would cause alarm and fear.

Rupert claimed that he didn’t think about the video for a full year. He knew that the court had found the allegations against the witnesses to be unfounded, so why did he choose to become so close to other activists in the case? Was he sucked in? Was this just a way to get a few more likes on Facebook or YouTube?

“Did Rupert consider himself a reasonable man?” Mr Bowyer asked. He was funded by many activists; why had he come to the UK armed with a hard drive with a list of names? Did he know they would fear him? Why did he travel to Lanzarote to meet with one of the most vocal campaigners, whom he described as “considerably dangerous”?

In March 2016, Sabine sent him a link with a list of names. If, before he came to the UK, he considered that Hampstead was a dead story, why did he not delete that file?

It was, Mr Bowyer said, because he intended to continue his campaign. Try as he might to dress it up, what Rupert did was harassment. He made that tirade on American Freedom Radio whilst he was in Holland, right before his trip to the UK. He says it was for the trolls, but the lie comes in the assertion after the threat to “beat them up real bad”: “they’re being physical, why shouldn’t people get physical with them?”

On the first day of the school term, in what Rupert called a coincidence, he showed his “defiant face” on Facebook. Anyone looking at that post might assume that he had a knife. But why say knife? Why not just say no, no problem, I wasn’t armed?

Mr Bowyer pointed out that Rupert said he thought he should remove the post…but he didn’t. There is a difference between a closed Facebook conversation where amusing conversations about “biscuits” may take place amongst friends, and public pages, where anyone can see him standing outside the school, using weapons terminology.

This was undoubtedly a course of conduct, Mr Bowyer said. A reasonable person would realise that the witnesses would fear him.

It is not a defence to say, “I am a publicity seeker”, or “I have two different personas, but I don’t think through what I am doing”. Being online is no defence of the “wild west” on the internet.

The reason we have a jury like you is to say, “enough is enough”.

Defence summing up

Summing up the case for the defence, Mr Stevens said, “This is not just about threats. It’s really about Rupert making threats of violence, and you must think very hard about whether that’s what he’s done—dispassionately, objectively”. Is it fair, or is there a danger that what he did was mischaracterised? If it’s viewed through the lens of cynicism, that’s just not fair.

It is not in dispute that a number of individual posts on the internet were, for the witnesses, very difficult, Mr Stevens said. But where does Rupert fit into the picture? The fact that the witnesses felt emotional and broken by the posts they saw should not colour the jury’s consideration of the evidence.

Mr Stevens said it is different to distinguish the feelings resulting from Rupert’s behaviour from the rest of the campaign, carried out by others.

“People were accused of significant child abuse, which was unfounded. Names and details were put online. Rupert did not do that, so don’t allow him to be the fall guy for all of this”, Mr Stevens said. “You may feel that it’s not one man’s campaign, but one man’s commentary, and no more than that. There is a grave danger of his position being unfairly elevated”.

Mr Stevens urged the jury to be dispassionate, objective, and careful. He said the case is not nearly as straightforward as the prosecution says it is.

“The defendant does not need to prove his innocence”, he stressed. “You have to be sure, as you are responsible for determining these things”. Mr Stevens said that the prosecution has failed to meet some evidentiary hurdles. For example, it is important to be satisfied that Rupert’s behaviour was a course of conduct. “The law doesn’t define a course of conduct, it’s a matter of judgement”, he said.

He asked whether the evidential connections between the video, the American Freedom Radio broadcast, and the Facebook post have been overstated. “These must be scrutinised with great care”.

In fact, Mr Stevens said, three of the four witnesses only saw two of the three pieces of evidence.

Looking at the Facebook post, Mr Stevens said that Rupert was said to have been acting out a threat. “But is that fair? There were more than 18 months between the original YouTube video and the Facebook post, yet the prosecution would have you believe that he was making good on a threat. Really? Where are the kicked down doors?”

There is no suggestion that Rupert was at the school on the day the photo was posted. He didn’t talk to anyone. “So he was not making good on a threat”, Mr Stevens said.

Rupert was the victim of online abuse, so he was simply saying to his detractors, “I’m here”, he said. “He was not defiant against the parents—he was not accusing them. What we need to look at is the evidence, which is not as connected as it’s made out to be”.

Regarding the American Freedom Radio broadcast, Mr Stevens said, Rupert said, “I just want to beat them up pretty good”. “But who? Is it really the parents? What characterised that response is its rambling nature; this snippet comes from a show that was over an hour long”.

“There’s a theory about Mr Quaintance”, Mr Stevens said, “that he’s a bad guy. You may think that’s unfair”. He emphasised the importance of not over-inflating Rupert’s words. “In context, is this not a case where provocation and hyperbolic language” are used?

Rupert accepts that he made all the internet posts in evidence, “but is it fair to accept that they were calculated to cause alarm and distress?” Mr Stevens asked. “This could be dangerous, considering the character evidence given”.

“The evidential hurdles are not passed when you look at events dispassionately”, Mr Stevens said. “Don’t let him be the fall guy”.

As far as Section 4 of the Harassment Act, “we must accept that witnesses heard and saw material online that definitely caused fear of violence. But there is a distinction between how that material was received, and the intent of the person who put it up”.

Mr Stevens noted that in some cases, witnesses had not actually seen material on “two distinct occasions”, and he emphasised the need for the jury to “scrutinise with care” the evidence put before them. One witness described being fearful about her child, but said nothing about herself; this is a distinction, Mr Stevens said. “This is an evidential hurdle that the prosecution has failed to pass”.

“Only when you get past the evidential hurdles do you get to what the defendant knew or ought to have known, so is it really fair to say he knew or ought to have known?” Mr Stevens asked. He urged the jury to scrutinise the evidence with extra care, noting that it could be subject to misinterpretation. He suggested that because Rupert was in a heightened emotional state when he made the material, he might have used emotive language.

“You might say something that sounds like that”, he said. “But would you mean it?” He said that the language in this case has been injected with criminality: “it’s a turn of phrase, and it might be unfair to take it literally”.

He urged the jury to approach the language Rupert used with extreme care, especially considering that “this was at the infancy of his personal investigation, and he had no knowledge of any evidence in the case”.

Rupert didn’t have access to the lists of names at the time when he made the video, Mr Stevens said, so how could he have intended the message of the video to be directed toward the witnesses? “Does he know or ought he to know that the witnesses were looking at the video?” he asked. “There has been no evidence of any communication between Rupert and any of the individuals listed on the indictment, so how could he have threatened them?”

Mr Stevens stated that the witnesses were hypervigilant, and said that any fair-minded person would do the same in the circumstances. “But is it fair to conclude that the defendant would know that?” This was not a case where Rupert targeted individuals, he said; the witnesses were not his intended audience.

He asked the jury to go through the evidence with care, as he said this case has been inappropriately characterised. “There is a danger that he has been made a fall guy for something bigger”, Mr Stevens said. “Don’t allow that to mischaracterise what he’s been accused of”. Stating that Rupert’s actions were not calculated to cause alarm and distress, Mr Stevens said that “people were left emotionally damaged. This is shocking and appalling, but it’s not Rupert’s fault”.

Adjournment

Court adjourned for the day, and will resume at 10 a.m. Tuesday following the bank holiday; Judge Griffith said he would then replay the video evidence for the jury, and give them their instructions before they make their deliberations. It’s hoped that a verdict will be reached that day. Our reporter will be there, and will bring you all the details.

All I can say is that many of us that were here during the entire event might have quite a different recollection of how ALL of them were acting, one supported by the written evidence of their own posts such as APD’s and mad moo’s continual (and continuing) naming of the children, in defiance of the courts ruling

(hopefully thats well back from the line, I wrote several things, then on second thoughts rewrote and deleted some things)

My my, what pretty pictures they paint… I pose the following in the form of rhetorical questions in reflection and comment upon the contemporaneous reports I have just read..

Factually, Rupert is on trial in respect of his own actions and their impact on certain individuals, not for some bigger or other thing – which we might reasonably hope will eventually result in others facing the dock for their part. The successful prosecution of Quaintance will not remedy all that has been done wrong with respect to the Hampstead hoax by a long chalk. Therefore the argument that this trial is somehow about scapegoating him for some bigger thing is entirely vacuous.

“As far as Section 4 of the Harassment Act, ‘we must accept that witnesses heard and saw material online that definitely caused fear of violence. But there is a distinction between how that material was received, and the intent of the person who put it up’.”

Is there really? If you fire a bullet in the air near a crowd, it may not be your specific intent for it to strike and injure someone in that crowd when it returns to earth. But as that is a likely consequence of a high velocity projectile returning to earth in a crowded place, you reasonably ought to know that there is a high probability of that consequence when you send it up there! The action is therefore wilfully reckless. Similarly, get into the driving seat of a car drunk, and you may not intend to kill a pedestrian; but would the law consider your ‘intentions’ if you did?

As much as it has been relevant in certain past judgements under this act, is “intent” part of the charges or all that relevant here? As far as I am aware the matter of ‘intent’ was, in the past, raised in relation to parties other than those specifically targeted being jointly and severally affected by proven harassment, and seeking remedy in their own right… The question being who was the target?

However, I believe it has been reported and proven that Rupert actually held records which effectively specified the witnesses as targets. …How he obtained those records or who he obtained them from might be relevant to some other action, but in relation to this, matters such as APD being ‘dangerous’ are just a complete distraction.

If she was so relevant why wasn’t she called or even charged? And at this stage, she isn’t on trial for anything; Rupert is!

“and that Rupert knew or ought to know that his conduct would cause the witnesses to fear that violence would be used against them;

and that Rupert ought to know that his course of conduct would cause the witnesses to fear that violence would be used against them if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that this course of conduct would cause the other to fear this on that occasion.”

It’s a little unfortunate that the prosecution had not informed themselves as to the true nature of a “biscuit knife” – which, factually, is a weapon sold in the USA, specifically branded as such that even carries a ‘tag line’ very similar to the exact turn of phrase used by Rupert’s associate. – And also that they hadn’t researched the phrase “sharp ham”.

But, objectively, what possible purpose can there be in encroaching upon the boundaries of a school at its first day of term (i.e. when the people you have actually documented as ‘targets’ are likely to be there) taking an adversarial stance against that school – as was his stated position at the time – giving the clear impression of being armed (whether he actually was or not is irrelevant) and stating your ‘defiance’?

Objectively – what effect, what consequence, can reasonably be expected from such an action? i.e. in general is it not accepted in law that behaving in any threatening and/or aggressive manner is something that may well be expected to cause a reasonable person to fear violence?

Then there is the matter of the time and the place… With respect to Rupert’s claims to be a ‘journalist’ researching a case; I will happily call him a deluded fraud. But having donned that mantle can he really escape responsibility for the records he kept and knowing what happened when (i.e. when the school went back – common knowledge)? – The school certainly wasn’t closed that day!

I do not speculate as to the answers to those questions and urge that no-one else does; merely that we each reflect privately upon them. Tuesday will be interesting!

I do believe that the mention of the digestive treat implied by an acquaintence, has been correctly adressed by the prosecution.
That would be also my initial thought if someone implied, that I may have a digestive treat in my own pocket.
On a lighter note.

Yes well, it may well be a moot point… The main point being that he gave the impression of being armed. It just strikes me as too coincidental that when prompted with the word “biscuit” Rupert’s ‘word association engine’ responds “knife”, not gun; and also that this friend’s prompt was pretty-much the tag line for the specific branded item… Additionally, “sharp ham” also appears to be a knife reference. Against that there is Rupert’s claim that this was all an ‘in joke’? I’ll avoid expressing my opinion on that claim ’till after the verdict.

Wrecka still has her `petition’ up, some more suckers joined it 😦
Some of the comments there make me wonder how the people responsible manage to dress themselves in the morning- one poster claims to be a law student, yet supports wrecka….. I dont see a bright future ahead of her in the law industry if that’s the level of preparation she is putting into any cases she may get in the future…

“So as I see it she now has an arrest for trespass, or whatever they are calling it, that she has to answer for, and then another arrest warrant for skipping the last hearing. So I would say that the first three were civil and the last 1/2 are criminal. She is really racking them up at this point.”

Oh yes….

plus the costs- started at 5K, now over 75K and rising fast….
and with the lost value of the house with its history and at a forced sale to boot- she’s coming close to probably losing the entire value of the house and now likely to end up in the slammer to boot- all because of her inability to not be a silly tosser and do things correctly…

“…that Rupert had complained about this to the police; and that a person who identified himself to police as a Satanist had been cautioned…”

I am unsure if this is a reporting error, but this is factually incorrect of what transpired. I am the Satanist who was subject to complaint by RQ to the police for alleged harrassment. The police initially contacted EC asking for me to contact them. I sent e-mails, and these were lost by the police e-mail spam systems. I had another chase by EC to me, so I rang the police, and they then found the e-mails. The e-mails denied I was harrassing, and I listed my defences such as prevention of crime. I asked for examples of allegedly harrassing posts, none which was provided. I never met any police representatives in person, all contact was mainly by e-mail, with one telephone call to confirm they had found the e-mails. I was warned off from posting further content against RQ, and I backed off. I did not agree, did not accept, would never have accepted any “caution”, which is a legal alternative to charges and is an official record against someone. Had any official caution been offered as an alternative to charges, I would have rejected, run this into court. I am not particularly bothered about any court case, I would have defeated it, but would have been concerned if in order to try and prove a case, computers were taken, and this would have been fatal to my business where all my data, and the business systems I personally coded, such as accounts, are stored. I would not have given RQ an inch to play the victim card via an official caution of one of his critics in court. Not happy.

SV. This needs to be told to the prosecution as Ruperts lawyer has committed perjury and it could affect the outcome of the jury’s decision. A jury hearing that a trial built around a case of alleged SRA being told a Satanist had been cautioned could very well base their judgement on this, especially if they are religious.

I observe, if this is true of what the jury and court has been told, it could have a significant impact on the eventual outcome. Please refer this to whoever needs to be told. EC can contact me on Twitter, if I need to take further action.

I think the problem stems from my reporting, SV. I’m very sorry–I was using the word “cautioned” in the colloquial, not the legal sense. I checked my notes and there’s nothing about a police caution, so I’ll change my wording on the blog. I’m really sorry to have caused you any distress.

As an example, if an individual lives in Lands End, and the server for their e-mail or internet is based in Paris, then an application that is reporting on the location of the individual will report back that they are based in Paris.

For clarification, I think that the powers to be needs to be informed that I never was offered or agreed a caution. Nor did I admit anything criminal, nor did I even get told of what content I was supposed to have allegedly been accused of posting. I am going to post now some e-mail exchanges with certain information redacted.

RQ (SEMI REDACTED) has put in a complaint of harassment. He has provided some screen shots from
Twitter and You tube and there is a mention of you.
I would like to speak to you and anyone else involved in this matter.

Thank you for your email – I have reviewed the content. I will not be taking any
further action and will close the report, however can you and others on Hoaxtead
Research blog refrain from posting or talking about him on any of the social media
platforms.

Anything I have posted out on Hampstead SRA Hoax and RQ (EDIT) via Twitter, Facebook, WordPress and YouTube are under names
satanicviews, views_s and of course James Hind.

The accounts are as follows:

LISTS 4 PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS (REDACTED)

I do not use any other accounts but these.

I used to be involved with List616 which was discontinued middle of last
year, since Gray Faction of the Satanic Temple is fighting against SRA
which I work with.

RQ (EDIT) has blocked me on Twitter and Facebook, I cannot remember how
long that has been, but it has been a long time.

All actions and postings that I have made is designed to destroy the hoax,
defend and protect the lives, families and homes of Hampstead residents,
families, children plus the same to Satanists and defending my religion.
I was very alarmed and concerned with postings and things RQ (EDIT) said
that suggested to me he might attack people with a gang of people, abduct
children, break down doors and harm people and property. He said things
that suggested he might have a sexual interest in children and that he was
a fanatic and dangerous.

Despite my anxiety over what RQ (EDIT) was saying and doing I posted with
one eye on terms and condtions of social media, plus our law, plus not to
undermine the good work of Hoaxtead.

I will have to see screen shots of any individual postings that RQ (EDIT)
is referring to with regards to his allegations of harrassment by me, I am
confident that I have been within the law on anything I have posted. I
take full ownership for anything posted under the above four named
accounts.

Even before RQ (EDIT) arrived in the UK I identified him as a person who
could reignite the hoax under the orchestration of Angela Power Disney. I
put in a major effort to argue that there was no SRA, that this was a
fiction, offering rational arguments, sources, satire and clear warnings
this would get him into legal trouble. I cannot see how RQ (EDIT) can
argue he has been harrassed when he deliberately talked and acted to
provoke people. I cannot allow people like this to run around using my
religion as a vehicle to dishonestly say and do things that harm others
for personal gain, the lives, families and homes of Satanists as well as
those accused of being Satanists are at stake. I will take what ever
actions I have to either to mitigate or defend the innocent and those that
are Satanists from fanatics like RQ (EDIT).

RQ (EDIT) was not interested in the truth, he did not have to come to the
UK to see there was no SRA in Hampstead. RQ (EDIT) is a psychopath who
manipulates and deceives for his own ends, he is a dangerous fellow. I
and others provided RQ (EDIT) with all the sources he needed to see the
SRA was a hoax in Hampstead. He was not being a journalist, he was
totally obsessed that SRA was happening in Hampstead, he was not being
balanced and objective. From day one he was determined that RD (FATHER OF P&Q EDIT)
was guility of the dishonest things he was accused of.

It was frustrating to see all my efforts to convince RQ (EDIT) to not
pursue this SRA hoax fail, that he came to the UK paid for by other Satan
Hunters. I tried to get him stopped at the UK border with complaints to
the Immigration, and also whilst he was here. The things he said resulted
in my making police aware of him, of which there will be Tweets about on
my Twitter account.

Defeating the Hampstead SRA hoax requires an information counter-campaign
which requires answering any of the claims of Satan Hunters on social
media by giving the other side of the story. Also, this requires a
challenge to the character and intentions of many dishonest fanatical and
dangerous people who will play the system and victim card for all they
can. Everything a Satan Hunter puts out has to be challenged, otherwise
the hoax spreads, and it will take just one mentally ill person to act
upon it, people then die.

Yes, I was speaking of the reporting of the agreed-upon admissions, Babs. While my note-taking is pretty accurate, I can’t claim to capture 100% of what’s said, so it’s quite possible that I missed Mr Stevens saying the word “caution” in other contexts than the Admissions. To be fair, his speechifying was rather…extensive, shall we say, and repetitive. The version I posted last night is really the highlights.

The word “caution” should never have been used, if this was in fact used in this court hearing, because a jury will take this as if someone had been guilty of X, and accepted guilt of X, and it will have a significant effect on jury outcomes if they have a misleading misunderstanding of a statement made to them.

Babs, I commented above to SV that the word “caution” did not appear in the section of the trial where they read the second set of Admissions. Admissions are, by their nature, material that has been agreed upon by both sides.

If a merest grain of conscious effort shown by members here to exercise due restraint from reactive/reckless “wiseacring” were to have been manifested by the hoaxmob this blog would almost certainly never have been born let alone closing in rapidly on a million views.

I must admit, even at this stage, I having read EC’s reports and first-hand accounts from others who were in court, am highly dissatisfied with the accuracy of what appears to have been developed as narrative. And I’m somewhat overcome by the pungent smell of rodent. If one was building a continent water tank one wouldn’t build unnecessary weak spots into it, nor would one deliberately signpost them for the benefit of vandals.

As an aside, I’m currently listening to a somewhat tongue-in-cheek/sceptical/cynical account of gangstalking type activity in the US… That is, ‘where a group or individual spend large amounts of money to stalk or harass another group or individual’. Clearly an issue if you’re an ordinary, innocent citizen, living a quiet life when you suddenly become a genuine ‘T.I.’; targeted by malicious nutcases!

One would reasonably hope in these circumstances that to be protected from harassment it would be sufficient for one’s name or other details to appear on a list of targeted individuals and subsequently subjected to harassment by holder(s) of that list; I would see no relevance in at what stage a copy of that list was picked up by a particular member of the stalking group or who supplied it.

Let’s suppose an Islamic terrorist entered the country armed with a list of ‘targets’ they had obtained a few days previously en-route to the UK, having previously made a generic threat to the safety and security of UK residents… What relevance is there (in terms of their victims actually being targeted) in the timing of those people becoming the point of specific focus for an attack?

Or as another example, if you were an anarchist-type based in say Newcastle and part of an organisation or movement which had among its aims the disruption of democracy and the work of parliament, and you travelled to London with the specific intention of harassing ‘an MP’, does it matter at what point your ‘handlers’ within that organisation provide you with the list of specific MPs you are to target?

Realistically, it is – in terms of any useful function of legislation – enough that an individual with capacity obtains a list of ‘T.I.s’ and acts upon it to actually cause those individuals fear. Any deficiency in that respect would render the relevant legislation impotent and unfit for purpose; it’s really just that simple.

I think it’s highly relevant that long before Rupert entered the UK people were contacting the authorities urging them to turn him away at customs because even then, they were placed in a state of alarm at the prospect of what he might do; he was reported as a terror threat. – There is no doubt that people contacted UKBA urging them to turn him away because he intended entering it with the specific stated intention of terrorising a community; why did they fail us? Again, can you imagine anyone of eastern descent issuing a threat to ‘kick down doors’ at any point and then being able to breeze into the country unfettered?

I would also observe that the middle-aged people ‘of good character’ that I know of and would considered as such will generally have work and study records extending a decade or two and have absolutely no criminal record of any kind… Something more than having managed to hold down a job for five out of thirty-eight years!

There is a video on Youtube that pre-dates Quaintance’s entry to the UK entitled “this thing is Rupert Quaintance” which is actually a better indicator of his character and general conduct. – A long way from the part played of the sniffling preppy twit in his SJW glasses painting pictures in the dock!

Character? Most reasonable people, by that stage in their life, will have partners and families and be productive, responsible members of society… “Pot” won’t be their self-declared “problem” and I’m sure very few men approaching 40 will have filmed themselves dressing and acting like a rather educationally-challenged teenage thug as a record of the ‘lovely’ life with ‘delightful’ friends they lead… For that person also to be going about pretending to be something they are not, with no credible career or profession behind them; all of that strikes me as a long way from exhibiting ‘good character’!

Quite the opposite, it’s the way of a disreputable and dishonest failure.

FALSE FLAG ALERT !
Something’s going down soon. Adverts appeared on this Crisis Actor’s timeline but she has numerous identities and appears as a new person at many events : gatecrashing the Glastonbury Festival. appearing as a drug addled Hippy at Glastonbury Court, Moderator at the Flat Earth conference..real identity believed to be Faigil Yentl Finkelstein…a Zionist Mossad dis-information agent

In my view any reference to a person’s religion is potentially prejudicial as this is both a separate and irrelevant thing in respect of any actions. Religious bias is a common if unfortunate fact of life, and I wonder if the individual in question would have so freely highlighted that someone was a Jew or a Catholic or a militant Protestant without fear of censure? Indeed, I wonder if this mention is even lawful?

Equally well there seems to be a legitimate point to protest in the inaccurate claim that James was “cautioned” – that being really quite a specific thing in legal terms, which any lawyer ought to know. We now have two people who have reported hearing that and thus it is corroborated.

Yes, she quite clearly restates the nasty and very old blood libel against Jews in this video: the idea that Jews kidnap and murder Christian babies and then use their blood in their “rituals”. It’s utterly ludicrous and has been discredited many, many times, but for some reason anti-Semitic people just keep reviving it. I don’t think it’s unfair to label someone who continues to promote this lie as an anti-Semite.

Words “Satanist” and “caution” are loaded with emotional and legal significance. Firstly, “Satanist”, there is a difference between saying an “individual was warned” as opposed to a “Satanist was warned” in a highly emotional and controversial disproven SRA context. I have a reasonable knowledge of UK law, and I am unaware of any other meaning for “caution” other than a procedure used as an alternative to charges, where the law has been broken, where guilt is admitted of the law is broken, and where the individual accepts the caution, and in all three points I deny.

Although I am unhappy about what seems to have been said, I am keen that no reader here, any victims, the media or any individual who matters in this court case are mislead, or acts upon misleading information. I have placed upon public record here everything I feel needs to be posted on this matter, and if I have to take any further action, then EC can contact me via Twitter, and I will act accordingly. All that needs to happen is the court offcials or CPS makes a public clarification, so that jury makes decisions without any misunderstandings. The police have all the material on record to put any potential error or misunderstanding right, if CPS and police talk to each other. I also stress, I am in all deeds and decisions, mindful that the Satan Hunters would love to do to me what they are doing to RD and other victims.

I think you have every right to be aggrieved James. It’s a fact that for most of us the term ‘Satanist’ (rightly or wrongly) conjures up fearful and largely pejorative images. However, whether individuals like it or not, it is a recognised religion, and your basic human right to practice it. – We are not talking about anything that is outside the boundaries of the law after all.

Relative to the events Rupert complained of, the religion you embrace is of no consequence or importance. Further, there is an obligation upon the state (the court being a state institution) to maintain neutrality and impartiality between religions and as between religious and non religious forms of belief.

Article 9 ECHR – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Given that the comments came from an educated man who ought to know better, the comment as to your religion can only reasonably be viewed as an attempt to throw you and your actions into an unfairly negative light; that would appear to be a breach of your article 9(1) rights. – And yes, I agree that the phrase ‘cautioned’ or ‘given a caution’ in relation to interaction with the police has quite a specific meaning.

The crowd in America that were reporting about RQ, easily available on Google, I will not post the link in deference to the court, seem to have forgotten about him, even though they said they would keep people updated. Some untruths on there about what actually happened.

There are sites that you can use to input say a username and find out more information, or a real name if the person knows that and work out the correct one. It really depends how much information one person knows about that person already.
Sites like “pipl” i have personally used in the past amongst many other such as family heritage type sites. Also just a specific google search of a persons username or full name can bring up details depending on how much information is on the internet about that person.
For example I know what cars Dave Shurter has purchased in the past based on internet searches, same with Lift The veil. Obviously if people are professionals with all their business information for networking, or history of their company, there will be more info.

All Abraham Christies company details are online such as his Cash for Gold and Hemp businesses along with dates of operation.

Absolutely SV. When I read this (fantastic – thank you!) report, the mention of a ‘satanist’ certainly stood out to me – it would anyone. Couple that with ‘caution’, and the mind can conjure up a scenario. Beliefs are, I believe, a protected characteristic. Protected rights in law, for people to be treated equally. Do people need to know specifics about any person who holds protected characteristic? We all do have beliefs, physical abilities, sexualities, etc. Not sure why a belief was important to highlight – but for being sensational.

There are other issues on a seperate note that I made aware to someone last night and I believe they have forwarded that information onto EC. I won’t go into details but it may be very important or of no importance whatsoever.

Thanks for feedback. Both the Clerk of the Court and Steve Martin has been e-mailed. This is the limit of my intervention, because I am putting my safety at risk from the Satan Hunters. There is a problem that government and police e-mail servers seem to think my e-mails are spam and dump them in the spam file, so if anyone please could contact these people to let them know my e-mails have been sent, that would be appreciated.

would you mind giving me links? i can’t find the sharp ham connection, aside from kitchen knives, and the biscuit knives i have found look like roller razors, sorta like a paint roller, but they dont look like they could cut a person..if he was going to try with that he’s stupid

facebook doesn’t always take things down right away. it seemed to be a constant complaint in certain groups, that people would report accounts for inappropriate pictures of children or sexual comments regarding them, only to be told it doesn’t violate community standards. i was wondering if you used sock accounts because apparently bombarding them with multiple reports is more likely to get it removed

Did they really bring up “Paul Bonacci”? A man with convictions for abusing a child. King didn’t turn up for the court case as he was in prison so the settlement was by default iirc.

“PAUL BONACCI – convicted at age 21 of molesting a 9 year old boy on three occaisions, Bonacci had a novel albeit offensive rationalization. He claimed that he had Multiple Personality Disorder, and that one of his alters was gay and therefore a child molestor! When the gay guy inside him took over, he would make Paul molest little boys, he said. Bonacci was diagnosed as MPD by the prison psychiatrist, after Bonacci related a pathetic life history of chronic negligence and abuse by older boys and men. Subsequently, Bonacci would relate ever more elaborate tales of victimization in child porn, prostitution and satanic abuse rings, to various interviewers. He also confessed to involvement in kidnapping missing 12 year old Johnny Gosch from Des Moines when he himself was 15, and subsequently raping the boy repeatedly on a rural property just outside the city limits. Bonacci was also interviewed by Dr Judianne Densen-Gerber, a self-professed expert on Ritual Abuse and MPD, while still in prison. She declared him a genuine MPD with “an extraordinary memory for detail”, which is interesting considering that episodic amnesia and problematic memory recall is supposed to be a necessary symptom of MPD.

“Meeting with Paul, I have spoken to several of his personalities. Three psychiatrists who have examined him concurred in the diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder, brought on by horrible, traumatic abuse when he was a child. My first act with respect to representing Paul Bonacci was to have him write down everything he could remember, about individuals who had abused him, from his earliest boyhood. An excerpt from what he wrote appears in Chapter 10. In that document and in Paul’s letters, his handwriting will vary, depending on which personality is in control.

Bonacci was sentenced to five years in prison in 1989, for molesting a young boy for whom he was baby-sitting. Apparently one of Paul’s homosexual personalities was in control of him during the incident, in which he briefly put his hand on the outside of the young boy’s pants, an activity stopped when a remorse-stricken Paul reasserted control…” – The Franklin Cover-Up

Despite being a convicted child molestor and confessing to participation in kidnapping & rape of a younger boy, Bonacci is called a hero & martyr by Satanic Ritual Abuse & Mind Control conspiracy theorists.”

“Gunderson then described a conversation he had with a witness, Paul Bonacci, from an alleged satanic-ritual abuse case in Nebraska that was detailed by former Nebraska state Sen. John DeCamp (1992), who was also a speaker at this conference. The grand jury of Lincoln described this case as an attack by DeCamp “for personal political gain and possible revenge” (Dorr 1991, p. 1), a “smear campaign,” and a “carefully crafted hoax” (United Press International, September 18, 1990). The grand jury jailed one and indicted two others (including Bonacci) for perjury, and was so critical of DeCamp that he sued the grand jury for ridicule, though he quickly lost (Dorr 1991). ”

The bombing of Dresden gave Sabine a sore bottom; her baby bum problem probably psychologically turned her mind inside out. When Abraham Christie and Ella Draper started talking about plastic willies and bums, it all came back to Sabine and made her regress to a former anal stage in her development. I am sure Freud and Jung would find Sabine and other Satan Hunters a fascinating subject of study.

The guy talking, who appears to be the leader of said army (even though – spoiler alert – he betrays them towards the end of the video), incorrectly calls them Jelly Beans instead of Jelly Babies. Now, as any fule kno, yer Jelly Bean is a whole different proposition to yer Jelly Baby:

9:53 – “I’m sure that the Devil-lovers will cheer. But I’m not quite sure how long they’ll keep cheering, you know. Eventually, those cheers are going to turn into gasps and cries of anguish, I believe, if I have anything to do with it.”

She’s not relevant to what Rupert did… “The bad big girl did it and ran away” line? A bit sad! Rupert’s a middle-aged man, not a child! She ought to be facing the courts, but she’s not Rupert’s mummy – she’s another fucking nutcase!

I had forgotten than Evan Harrington actually gave citations to the Franklin Grand Jury findings, wherein DeCamp’s masterminding of the whole affair was fingered. (I’ve surely forgotten more than I can claim to know, about everything. Scary thought…)

Simply google the term “sharp ham” complete with quotation marks as I suggested yesterday; you seem on the right track already. If you look at the previous thread you will find the “biscuit knife” advertisement. It’s made by a company called Boker, and marketed under the particular tag line “That’s one tough biscuit in your pocket”.

@Babs
I spent a little bit of time earlier looking into your concerns. It’s important that if you do not want someone to have your IP address not to connect on Facebook Messenger of a similar chat style messenger as they can get your IP from that as soon as you connect. The same with responding to emails, they can also get your IP from the message header text.
This will be an approximate location, similar to how when you access a website they target you with adverts mentioning your rough location. A persons real identity and details can only be legal obtained through a court order as your ISP protects that information.

It’s not something to really worry about too much to be honest, it can be useful for blocking people from a page, site or blog etc. Be careful leaving comments on blogs and sites you do not trust as the site owner should be able to view your IP address, WordPress even has settings for that.

Any Crime Unit in the UK, Ireland, Spain, Timbukto, Outer Mongolia, everywhere, watch one of Angela’s videos for more than 5 minutes and then pray to the Lord for it all to stop.
In one of her videos, I think with Hetty B, she manages to make more defamatory claims than all the rest of the hoaxers put together. The only way she hasn’t had a knock on the door is…..

I am growing increasingly concerned about Teflon in all this.Its one thing to be a submissive,sidekick pushover who nods and agrees with everthing his grossly unpleasant misses spews out,but allowing her to use his head as a culture in which to grow a giant mushroom just makes him look a proper twat frankly.

Oh, I’m sure we’re all open minded enough to support gender neutrality where appropriate and don’t want to get too bogged down in stereotypes… I must admit though to being a little puzzled as to why he wasn’t wearing his more typical attire?

I knew things in Greece were tough but… I honestly didn’t realise Yannis lived in a motor-caravan, let alone that he hired such expensive and inappropriate drivers! – If he fired them, would the salary he saved not pay for a permanent site?

If you really wanted to hide your IP, then using a free or paid proxy will hide it from the website you are posting to
I sometimes use it to bypass bans on the woo sites, many who hand them out like candy for not accepting their viewpoint, or even just as a way of raising cash (GLP, I’m looking in your direction here lol)

Caravans? Drivers? Once again I feel I’m missing something. That’s two gags that have gone over my head now. Man, I’m on the special bus tonight. Either that or I’m still asleep and all this is a dream.